Specially the nasty post above! I thought I was bad! But I think Trice is right ... however, the discussion is not worthy Trice ... ex ... go back 200 years and look at "romantic" ... same thing ... "passionate" would be more appropriate, even to an extreme.

All in all, the only bit that I would like to add, is that we have a tendency to think that it only happened during the beginning of time with Adam and Eve and thus, no one else can have that priviledge or ability! Sadly, even that book is a horrible translation and a lot of stuff that was taken almost verbatim of Hindu and Summerian mythologies!

We're not that far apart! Guess what? ... COPIES!

Just wearing different tshirts and pants!

Dean wrote:

...

Therefore it is grammatically correct, for example, to describe an artist as a progressive Progressive Rock artist since we are using both the adjective form and the noun form of the word.

Therefore it is musicologically correct for a band or artist to belong in a genre of music known as Progressive as a name (as in Progressive Rock, or Progressive Metal) without their music being described as being progressive as an adjective.

...

The Professor has spoken!

Lock the thread before SD adds his agreement!

Edited by moshkito - May 07 2013 at 08:44

... none of the hits, none of the time ... now you know what the inner art is all about! www.pedrosena.com

Oh well, I consider Progressive rock as little more than just the name of the genre, and Prog rock as just the short name for Progressive. If we wanted to include only the bands that have progressed rock beyond what it was before they existed, there would be very few bands within the genre... and some of them wouldn't have the caracteristics we love so much about prog (I mean, at some point Punk and 80's synth pop would have been prog).

Oh yeah, and if the name of the genre actually had to define literally the bands, then I guess there just couldn't be any Heavy Metal... I mean, what would that be?

There is Progressive as a noun, which is the name of something and as a general rule the first letter is often capitalised to emphasis that it is the name of something specific rather than the name of something generic (such as cat for example as opposed to Tiddles the cat) - as with all names it is perfectly acceptible to shorten that as a diminutive, hence we get Prog, which is still a noun and is still the name of the same something.

And there is progressive as an adjective, this is a 'describing word' that we put with a noun to describe, modify or other substantive by limiting, qualifying, or specifying characteristics of the noun, as a general rule unless it is used at the start of a sentence (which would be difficult to do in correct grammar) the first letter of the adjective progressive should never be capitalised. Also, progressive as an adjective should not be shortened at all (ever) as it is the -ive suffix that denotes that it is the adjective form of progress, remove the -ive ending and the word looses its descriptive meaning completely.

Therefore when you describe a tune as being very Prog, you are saying that it belongs in the genre of music known by the noun Prog or Progressive - you are not saying that it is a piece of music that has progressed.

Therefore it is grammatically correct, for example, to describe an artist as a progressive Progressive Rock artist since we are using both the adjective form and the noun form of the word.

Therefore it is musicologically correct for a band or artist to belong in a genre of music known as Progressive as a name (as in Progressive Rock, or Progressive Metal) without their music being described as being progressive as an adjective.

Armed with this basic knowledge of the usage of Progressive as a noun and progressive as an adjective any further discussion on this subject is rendered pointless as any point, comment or opinion can be systematically categorised as using the word progressive either as a noun or an adjective.

There is Progressive as a noun, which is the name of something and as a general rule the first letter is often capitalised to emphasis that it is the name of something specific rather than the name of something generic (such as cat for example as opposed to Tiddles the cat) - as with all names it is perfectly acceptible to shorten that as a diminutive, hence we get Prog, which is still a noun and is still the name of the same something.

And there is progressive as an adjective, this is a 'describing word' that we put with a noun to describe, modify or other substantive by limiting, qualifying, or specifying characteristics of the noun, as a general rule unless it is used at the start of a sentence (which would be difficult to do in correct grammar) the first letter of the adjective progressive should never be capitalised. Also, progressive as an adjective should not be shortened at all (ever) as it is the -ive suffix that denotes that it is the adjective form of progress, remove the -ive ending and the word looses its descriptive meaning completely.

Therefore when you describe a tune as being very Prog, you are saying that it belongs in the genre of music known by the noun Prog or Progressive - you are not saying that it is a piece of music that has progressed.

Therefore it is grammatically correct, for example, to describe an artist as a progressive Progressive Rock artist since we are using both the adjective form and the noun form of the word.

Therefore it is musicologically correct for a band or artist to belong in a genre of music known as Progressive as a name (as in Progressive Rock, or Progressive Metal) without their music being described as being progressive as an adjective.

Armed with this basic knowledge of the usage of Progressive as a noun and progressive as an adjective any further discussion on this subject is rendered pointless as any point, comment or opinion can be systematically categorised as using the word progressive either as a noun or an adjective.

Oh well, I consider Progressive rock as little more than just the name of the genre, and Prog rock as just the short name for Progressive. If we wanted to include only the bands that have progressed rock beyond what it was before they existed, there would be very few bands within the genre... and some of them wouldn't have the caracteristics we love so much about prog (I mean, at some point Punk and 80's synth pop would have been prog).

Oh yeah, and if the name of the genre actually had to define literally the bands, then I guess there just couldn't be any Heavy Metal... I mean, what would that be?

Oh yeah, and if the name of the genre actually had to define literally the bands, then I guess there just couldn't be any Heavy Metal... I mean, what would that be?

I think the name heavy metal does capture the boundaries of the genre reasonably well. Heavy because it is pretty heavy (that is to say, loud and intense) and metal because the effect of distorted guitar riffs is a metallic sound. You take metal music from any era from the 70s onwards and it does meet both these criteria. Somebody who listens to extreme metal may not consider a Black Sabbath album heavy but that's a different story; vis a vis rock/blues, it is heavy.

^ there are loads of possible reasons put forward for why metal is called metal, none of them are particularily convincing if you ask me. It's one of those things that "no one knows" and now we never will. The one Iike is that metal is simply harder and heavier than rock.

"You know what uranium is, right?Itís this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things.But nobody talks about that."

^ there are loads of possible reasons put forward for why metal is called metal, none of them are particularily convincing if you ask me. It's one of those things that "no one knows" and now we never will. The one Iike is that metal is simply harder and heavier than rock.

How can you tell if a peice of music has progressed.......from what point, or singularity are we postulating the origin from whence all music has progressed? and when is the turning point going to happen and the music starts to regress back towards the origin? Or is the progression simply another word for on-going time?

If you locked Steven Wilson in a (soundproof) box with a funnel web spider, he is obviously neither dead nor alive and could well be preparing to finally create the symphonic progressive rock epic that is surely waiting to explode the myth that anything of such magnitude could be anything else but "Derivative".......

How can you tell if a peice of music has progressed.......from what point, or singularity are we postulating the origin from whence all music has progressed? and when is the turning point going to happen and the music starts to regress back towards the origin? Or is the progression simply another word for on-going time?

If you locked Steven Wilson in a (soundproof) box with a funnel web spider,† he is obviously neither dead nor alive and could well be preparing to finally create the symphonic progressive rock epic that is surely waiting to explode the myth that anything of such magnitude could be anything else but "Derivative".......

How can you tell if a peice of music has progressed.......from what point, or singularity are we postulating the origin from whence all music has progressed? and when is the turning point going to happen and the music starts to regress back towards the origin? Or is the progression simply another word for on-going time?

If you locked Steven Wilson in a (soundproof) box with a funnel web spider, he is obviously neither dead nor alive and could well be preparing to finally create the symphonic progressive rock epic that is surely waiting to explode the myth that anything of such magnitude could be anything else but "Derivative".......

Dude. Your over thinking it.

or maybe trying to debunk the whole idea of the thread ...although I must admit I've now forgotten what that was

How can you tell if a peice of music has progressed.......from what point, or singularity are we postulating the origin from whence all music has progressed? and when is the turning point going to happen and the music starts to regress back towards the origin? Or is the progression simply another word for on-going time?

If you locked Steven Wilson in a (soundproof) box with a funnel web spider,† he is obviously neither dead nor alive and could well be preparing to finally create the symphonic progressive rock epic that is surely waiting to explode the myth that anything of such magnitude could be anything else but "Derivative".......

Dude. Your over thinking it.

or maybe trying to debunk the whole idea of the thread ...although I must admit I've now forgotten what that was

Yeah exactly. I think we ALL are guilty getting into long-winded discussions about the orgins and use of certain terms that may or may not have a universal relevance to describe something, in this case 'prog' or 'progressive.' personally I feel it may lead to nowhere, but DEAN clarified quite well. Anywaymy dear Richard, I plan not add to the madness. :)

How can you tell if a peice of music has progressed.......from what point, or singularity are we postulating the origin from whence all music has progressed? and when is the turning point going to happen and the music starts to regress back towards the origin? ..

Hm, not trying to be snotty, but wasn't Punk rather regressive? To these ears the Punk bands played and sang just as bad and out of tune as the early Stones. Only faster.

How can you tell if a peice of music has progressed.......from what point, or singularity are we postulating the origin from whence all music has progressed? and when is the turning point going to happen and the music starts to regress back towards the origin? ..

Hm, not trying to be snotty, but wasn't Punk rather regressive? To these ears the Punk bands played and sang just as bad and out of tune as the early Stones. Only faster.

That would also assume that you've got some amazingly gifted ears that can listen to, absorb, and correctly delegate ratings to music. I'm not a punk fan at all, but it does bother me when people take whole genres and dub them "regressive" because it doesn't suit their taste. I can understand 'prog' fans not liking punk (and many other genres), but to toss it aside and call it garbage is VERY elitist and ignorant in my opinion.

"Prog rock" is a name. It's a word we use to categorize the music we all enjoy and love, but it's not an accurate description, as Dean also pointed out with heavy metal. It's just a name. Just like Greenland. It's a name, but not at all descriptive of what it titles.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum